January 17, 2013, 11:04 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2012
Location: Memphis
Posts: 468
|
Magazine limit
I think I know the answer but have not seen it specifically addressed in the discussions on the magazine limit. Does the presidents new proposal of a 10 round limit apply to rifle magazines only or all magazines for pistols and rifles?
|
January 17, 2013, 11:10 AM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Location: Alabama
Posts: 24
|
Was wondering the same thing myself, but I'm sure it goes for all since I haven't see it specified.
|
January 17, 2013, 11:16 AM | #3 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 4, 2013
Posts: 12
|
If it is taken from the 1994 as the say it will model, then yes. All detachable feeding devices will be limited to 10.
|
January 18, 2013, 09:38 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Recall that the '94 ban grandfathered existing mags over 10 rounds. I don't know what this new proposed ban does.
|
January 18, 2013, 09:45 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
H.R.138 - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
Any magazine is limited to 10 rounds. Possession is grandfathered, but transfers are prohibited. If you have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, you will not only get to keep it, you will have to keep it. |
January 18, 2013, 09:55 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stuart, VA
Posts: 2,473
|
Won't happen.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither. |
January 18, 2013, 10:40 AM | #7 |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 19, 2009
Location: Ingleside, TX
Posts: 7
|
Yes, but don't forget. The bad guys are being told that they can't have more than 10 rounds either.
|
January 18, 2013, 11:15 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
Don't forget when they talk about reinstating the ban somehow the word "strengthened" keeps getting tossed in there as well.
It's sort of like "closing loopholes in NICS checks. The NICS checks were for retail sales of firearms, not private sales, now they want to add private sales and call them loop holes in the original law. Don't confuse this with "straw sales" buying the gun for someone else who is a prohibited possessor.
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 |
January 18, 2013, 11:45 AM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
A federal blanket ban on transfers may run afoul of the ex post facto clause in Article I of the Constitution and/or the takings clause in the 5A, not to mention the Heller SCOTUS decision. There is a chance that this provision may prompt the federal courts to immediately block enforcement of the whole law, a possibility that may prompt even some strong supporters of the legislation to amend this provision away so the baby won't be thrown out with the bathwater.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
January 18, 2013, 12:24 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
A ban on transfers would not be an ex post facto law. It would not criminalize something done in the past, but a future action of transferring a magazine. I am not particularly confident that a transfer ban would violate the takings clause, partly because magazines would not be taken for "public use." The eventual confiscation of banned magazines might be viewed as a forfeiture of a public nuisance, which requires no compensation. |
|
January 18, 2013, 12:34 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
From H.R. 138:
‘‘A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufac14 tured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall 15 be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that 16 the device was manufactured after such date of enactment, 17 and such other identification as the Attorney General may 18 by regulation prescribe.’’. I guess any magazine manufactured after such a date without a serial number will be assumed to be legally made prior to the enactment date? |
January 18, 2013, 12:41 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2011
Posts: 1,405
|
A simple stamp stating it met some requirment, even a simple symbol would suffice to satisfy a requirement. Serialization is only necessary when things are to be tracked like the weapons themselves.
First they say all the new ones have to be marked, then the old ones as well. Then they say they all need to be recorded so that latter they can come get them. P.S. This is from Senator Al Franken of Minnesota; Quote:
__________________
Colt M1911, AR-15 | S&W Model 19, Model 27| SIG P238 | Berreta 85B Cheetah | Ruger Blackhawk .357MAG, Bearcat "Shopkeeper" .22LR| Remington Marine Magnum SP 12GA., Model 700 SPS .223 Last edited by lcpiper; January 18, 2013 at 01:15 PM. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|